It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Most Transparent White House Ever Rewrote The FOIA To Supress Politically Sensitive Docs

page: 3
40
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2014 @ 09:55 AM
link   
While I don't believe it was acceptable for the Bush administration to do it, you have to admit it's even worse for the Obama administration since Obama openly campaigned on and made countless promises towards a more open and transparent government.




posted on Mar, 21 2014 @ 10:16 AM
link   

jjkenobi
While I don't believe it was acceptable for the Bush administration to do it, you have to admit it's even worse for the Obama administration since Obama openly campaigned on and made countless promises towards a more open and transparent government.


We are seeing it manifest in multiple ways. Changing the FOIA doesn't look out of place in an administration that has federal employees using non-government email accounts to muddy the waters, refusing to release documents to oversight committees, making demonstrably false statements in hearings with no fear of repercussions, etc...

I'm not a fan of politicians, in general, but it is sadly funny to see the GOP being blamed for not "working with" someone who basically demands a rubber stamp for whatever he wants to do. Meanwhile, the GOP is stonewalled on every question they ask.



posted on Mar, 21 2014 @ 10:21 AM
link   

alienreality
I see these scoundrels before Obama, and now with him, it is almost like they are still counting on having Obama's activities ignored by his supporters simply because they are still holding Bush accountable for most everything. And this gives them so much more leeway to put the screws to the country.


And having our pretty much lame duck congress and senate just pretending to care, it gets worse and worse. A few of the repubs are even in disguise and aren't that at all. The republican majority whip and Boehner just for starters. They are total rubber stamps for everything Obama wants to ram through under the radar.. They need to be stamped 4F and booted right into the street.



The only people who actually subscribe to party beliefs and ideals are citizens, and that's exactly where the ruling class wants us. Despite the perceived political parties, the politicians are cut from the same filthy cloth. They take turns eroding the rights and freedoms of the citizenry and we blindly vote for rotating power "parties" while they work together to seize complete control of the country.

Republicans and Democrats are one and the same.



posted on Mar, 21 2014 @ 03:07 PM
link   
I am glad that the windows in my house are not the same kind of transparent that the White House is....
I'd have to turn my lights on during the day.



posted on Mar, 21 2014 @ 04:48 PM
link   

xuenchen

~Lucidity
Yep. It was during Bush too. I have a thread around here somewhere that shows the tit for tat of the Bush v Obama "thing" (whatever this "thing" is).

Example: They made a fuss over Bush saying, "Now watch this drive..." so now we must make fun of Obama golfing.

And the list goes on and on and on. This is all like a really bad case of deja vu for those of us who actually remember things. Or maybe more like a bad rash. The just keep rewriting the headlines.

From 2009: Bush Signs FOIA Rewrite

For all of you who still believe it matters who's in the White House? it doesn't.


edit on 3/19/2014 by ~Lucidity because: typo again


The one Bush "signed" looks like it was actually congressional legislation.

And it looks like it may actually be favorable?

Can somebody clarify the bad parts....



On Monday, Dec. 31, President George Bush signed bipartisan legislation containing the most important amendments to the FOIA in over a decade. The changes
expand the definition of who is a “representative of the news media.” This will benefit bloggers and non-traditional journalists by making them eligible for discounted processing and duplication fees that are available to the news media.

.....................

Here is the text of the new law (DECEMBER 17, 2007 )



Added; I think the Obama Administration is as transparent as a mirror.
edit on Mar-20-2014 by xuenchen because:



So Bush signed one in 2009? In his capacity as ex-President apparently, since Obummer was elected in 2008? Either that or that was one of the very last acts he signed since Obama took the reigns late January, I believe....



posted on Mar, 21 2014 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by CornShucker
 



What will this country do if, when the time comes to transfer power, he emulates his AG and just says, "NO"?


Good question.
It would be unprecedented.
What would the Constitutional remedy be in such a situation?



posted on Mar, 21 2014 @ 05:23 PM
link   

butcherguy
Good question.
It would be unprecedented.
What would the Constitutional remedy be in such a situation?


Hopefully, it is only a rhetorical question. I'm afraid that all bets would be off. There is no remedy in the Constitution that I know of for such a situation. The separation of powers is already being abused like never before. I shudder to think what it could mean for our country...

We sure wouldn't know it was coming until the last minute. Washington is a pretty spooky place lately.



posted on Mar, 21 2014 @ 07:33 PM
link   

jjkenobi
While I don't believe it was acceptable for the Bush administration to do it, you have to admit it's even worse for the Obama administration since Obama openly campaigned on and made countless promises towards a more open and transparent government.



I definitely agree. Also, I feel that it's worse because Democrats tend to get away with things Republicans at least get called on by the public. Democrats are generally (rightly or wrongly) thought of as "the good guys" by many people in the lower classes. This tends to lead to a "they can do no wrong" attitude.



posted on Mar, 21 2014 @ 08:14 PM
link   

CornShucker

butcherguy
Good question.
It would be unprecedented.
What would the Constitutional remedy be in such a situation?


Hopefully, it is only a rhetorical question. I'm afraid that all bets would be off. There is no remedy in the Constitution that I know of for such a situation. The separation of powers is already being abused like never before. I shudder to think what it could mean for our country...

We sure wouldn't know it was coming until the last minute. Washington is a pretty spooky place lately.


There is law passed by congress and signed by President Truman limiting a president to 2 consecutive terms in office. If he were to say no, I dont think it would stick. I kinda hope he does. Would be awesome seeing Michelle evicted from the White House.



posted on Mar, 21 2014 @ 08:49 PM
link   

bbracken677

CornShucker

butcherguy
Good question.
It would be unprecedented.
What would the Constitutional remedy be in such a situation?


Hopefully, it is only a rhetorical question. I'm afraid that all bets would be off. There is no remedy in the Constitution that I know of for such a situation. The separation of powers is already being abused like never before. I shudder to think what it could mean for our country...

We sure wouldn't know it was coming until the last minute. Washington is a pretty spooky place lately.


There is law passed by congress and signed by President Truman limiting a president to 2 consecutive terms in office. If he were to say no, I dont think it would stick. I kinda hope he does. Would be awesome seeing Michelle evicted from the White House.

But if the President decided that he wasn't going to leave, who would remove him? The old folks in the SCOTUS could rule against him all day long, but who would execute their order? His pal, the Attorney General?



posted on Mar, 22 2014 @ 01:56 PM
link   

butcherguy
But if the President decided that he wasn't going to leave, who would remove him? The old folks in the SCOTUS could rule against him all day long, but who would execute their order? His pal, the Attorney General?


I wouldn't worry about that. It's in their best interest for every president to leave when their time is up. When Obama's two terms are up and he leaves office, the blame for everything that has taken place under his administration goes with him (meanwhile, most of the policies, legislation and consequences quietly remain, even if some of them have to be disguised or shuffled around so people think they're gone). Then the next guy/gal gets to pretend everything that came before them was someone else's fault. And so it goes. An endless cycle. An invisible dictatorship with changing faces and the same mind.
edit on 22-3-2014 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2014 @ 04:07 PM
link   
Don't worry your sweet little heads about it.....Just keep wagging your fingers at that 'evil dictator' Putin!

The velvet glove is coming off the fascist fist.....Little by little you are creeping towards totalitarianism and when it comes you will have NOBODY but yourselves to blame and NOBODY will be coming to your rescue.

I only hope and pray that you don't drag the rest of down with you.



posted on Mar, 22 2014 @ 07:25 PM
link   

butcherguy

bbracken677

CornShucker

butcherguy
Good question.
It would be unprecedented.
What would the Constitutional remedy be in such a situation?


Hopefully, it is only a rhetorical question. I'm afraid that all bets would be off. There is no remedy in the Constitution that I know of for such a situation. The separation of powers is already being abused like never before. I shudder to think what it could mean for our country...

We sure wouldn't know it was coming until the last minute. Washington is a pretty spooky place lately.


There is law passed by congress and signed by President Truman limiting a president to 2 consecutive terms in office. If he were to say no, I dont think it would stick. I kinda hope he does. Would be awesome seeing Michelle evicted from the White House.

But if the President decided that he wasn't going to leave, who would remove him? The old folks in the SCOTUS could rule against him all day long, but who would execute their order? His pal, the Attorney General?


If no one takes his orders, they stop providing him with information etc etc all he will be is a squatter in the White House. He would need all kinds of support from various levels, particularly the military (yeah, lol that will happen!) in order to actually remain the President.



posted on Mar, 22 2014 @ 08:00 PM
link   


If no one takes his orders, they stop providing him with information etc etc all he will be is a squatter in the White House. He would need all kinds of support from various levels, particularly the military (yeah, lol that will happen!) in order to actually remain the President.


That hypothetical would go a long way toward explaining why we suddenly "needed" this:



No point in filing a FOIA... You won't get much. Even if you did, the snowball is far enough down the hill that you'd only get flattened.



posted on Mar, 23 2014 @ 05:20 AM
link   
reply to post by bbracken677
 

If no one had taken the orders of Hitler, he would have been powerless also.
If Obama has stacked the military with people loyal to him, that would make a difference. I am not saying that he has done this.
What I am really saying is that there is no real remedy for this situation provided by the Constitution. Thus far in American history, we have relied on the incumbent President's will to release the reins of power to the incoming President. There are remedies for the situation where the President is incapacitated, so we could take that route, but that discounts a situation where the President has loyalists in his cabinet/military.
edit on b000000312014-03-23T05:30:34-05:0005America/ChicagoSun, 23 Mar 2014 05:30:34 -0500500000014 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2014 @ 12:12 PM
link   

butcherguy
reply to post by bbracken677
 

If no one had taken the orders of Hitler, he would have been powerless also.
If Obama has stacked the military with people loyal to him, that would make a difference. I am not saying that he has done this.
What I am really saying is that there is no real remedy for this situation provided by the Constitution. Thus far in American history, we have relied on the incumbent President's will to release the reins of power to the incoming President. There are remedies for the situation where the President is incapacitated, so we could take that route, but that discounts a situation where the President has loyalists in his cabinet/military.
edit on b000000312014-03-23T05:30:34-05:0005America/ChicagoSun, 23 Mar 2014 05:30:34 -0500500000014 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)


Huge difference between the Hitler aspect and Obama...call it apples and oranges if you like.

IF Obama were to "stay in office" after an election I sincerely doubt anyone in govt would support him. Period. To do so would be to join Obama in violating the law. Period.



posted on Mar, 23 2014 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by bbracken677
 



IF Obama were to "stay in office" after an election I sincerely doubt anyone in govt would support him. Period. To do so would be to join Obama in violating the law. Period.

Correct, it would be illegal. It is called a coup.

It has happened plenty of times to constitutional governments.

A far as your doubts that 'anyone would support him,period', who would think that anyone would support his usurpation of the powers of the Legislative Branch that he already has?



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 


Sorry, but all you have to do is read a little to know he would not have the support of the military, nor the police, nor sheriffs, nor even anything resembling a majority of the population. His attempt to do so would fail with the magnificence of the ego that would attempt it.

He wouldn't even have the support of his own party....the act itself would likely doom the Democratic Party.



posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 08:05 AM
link   
reply to post by bbracken677
 




he would not have the support of the military

One wouldn't suppose that the military should be following orders to kill American citizens (including minors) with drone strikes in foreign countries when they haven't even been tried in a court of law..... but they do.




nor the police, nor sheriffs

Are these the same police that beat and kill people with impunity across these United States?

I have read about that.



posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 08:34 AM
link   

butcherguy
reply to post by bbracken677
 




he would not have the support of the military

One wouldn't suppose that the military should be following orders to kill American citizens (including minors) with drone strikes in foreign countries when they haven't even been tried in a court of law..... but they do.




nor the police, nor sheriffs

Are these the same police that beat and kill people with impunity across these United States?

I have read about that.


lol you are a joke, right?



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join